M.A. MURTHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 02-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.A. MURTHY 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 
A 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : Qualification acquired after prescribed date-Effect 
of-Advertisement of posts-Appellant and respondents 4 & 5 applying for 
the same-Respondents 4 & 5 permitted to appear for written test despite 
not being qualified on the last date of submission of application-
Respondents 4 & 5 being eligible on the date of interview-Selection of C 
respondent 4 and respondent 5 put in waiting list-Petition before High 
Court challenging the same-Dismissal of-High Court placing reliance 
on a previous Supreme Court judgment holding that the said judgment held 
the field on the date of selection and not applying the subsequent review 
judgment overruling the previous one-Held, High Court was in error in D 
holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was 
operative and not the subsequent review judgment-Candidates who 
acquired qualification subsequently were ineligible for appointment being 
not qualified on the last date of submission of application-However their 
appointments not set aside on the facts of the case, but the person eligible E 
on the prescribed date though appointed subsequently shall rank senior to 
them. 
Doctrine of Prospective overruling-Explained-There shall be no 
prospective overruling unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. 
Applications were invited by way of advertisement for recruitment 
to two posts prescribing the age and the requisite qualifications therein. 
Appellant and respondents 4 and 5 applied in response thereto. Though 
respondents 4 and 5 were not qualified on the last date of submission 
F 
of application, they were permitted to appear for written test. However, G 
on the date of interview they were eligible. While respondent no. 4 was 
selected, respondent no. 5 was placed in the waiting list. Against the 
same, appellant preferred a writ petition before High Court which was 
dismissed. High Court relied upon judgment of Supreme Court wherein 
it was held that if the applicant had acquired qualification by the time 
of interview, that is sufficient. 
H 
327 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
An appeal was preferred before Division Bench of High Court, 
which was again dismissed. A review application was filed before High 
Court inter alia on the ground that the Supreme Court judgment relied 
upon by High Court was overruled subsequently. However, the review 
application was dismissed on the ground that on the date of selection 
B of respondent no. 4, the first judgment of Supreme Court held the field 
and therefore the selection of the respondent no. 4 could not be 
questioned. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
C 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was in error in holding that the 
judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not 
the review judgment overruling the said judgment. All the more so when 
the subsequent judgment is by way of review of the first judgment in 
which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment 
D rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, 
effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased 
by countenancing the review applications. (332-B-D]" 
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., (19931 
Supp. 2 SCC 611 and Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar 
E and Anr., (1997) 4 sec 18, explained and relied upon. 
1.2. Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle 
of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency 
because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court 
F is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective over-
ruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to 
the normal principle of law. Prospective over-ruling is a part of the 
principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted 
to by this Court while superseding Jaw declared by it earlier. It is a 
device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent 
G multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable 
litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the law declared 
prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. 
The law as declared applies to future cases. (331-E-H) 
H 
J.C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.